Drones to be limited to 50m max altitude by EASA! 250g maximum for homebuilt!

[BigT]

COPIED AND POSTED FROM FACEBOOK BMFA DISCUSSION SITE

EASA Regulations, a Stand Easy Note from our Chichester & DMAC BMFA Rep.  A long read but an important one.

Hi, Ken Knox here. As you may or may not know I am the CADMAC PRO for the SABMFA  (Southern Area of the BMFA.)
One of my fellow committee members wrote to David Phipps who is the chief exec of the BMFA, what follows below is David's reply which I hope will allay some of your fears.

Hi Terry,

Through Europe Air Sports, we have been working on this for the last year. In actual fact, for the last few months it has been the main focus of my work!

EASA's intention was to implement rules which would have minimal impact on model flying and they believed that they had achieved this through the provisions in Article 15. However, I disagreed with them. The EASA rulemaking team were taken aback by my response and invited me (along with the FAI) to meet with them a little over a week ago. They acknowledge that they have 'not got it right' for model flyers and that there remains a lot of work to do. They have also invited us to work with them directly and suggest revisions which would make the proposals workable which I'm working on at present.

Feel free to respond directly to their comment email address, but they have had a much bigger response than they anticipated (particularly from the UK) and they've got the message. Comments to EASA are required by the 15th October.

In parallel (again through Europe Air Sport) I have written some proposed amendments to EASA's Basic Regulation which have been tabled by a German MEP. The proposals would introduce definitions for model flying and effectively place us in the same Annex as amateur built aircraft (and therefore under national control and free from EASA regulation). The amendments were due to be heard on the 10/11 October but have now been deferred until 9/10 November. Europe Air Sports has a professional lobbyist in the European Parliament who is very active on our behalf directly lobbying the relevant MEP's. I am also working in collaboration with colleagues from other Associations throughout Europe to ensure that they lobby their own MEP's directly too. The relevant UK MEP's appear to support the amendments and one of them (Jacqueline Foster) is a long term supporter whom I've worked with previously.

In terms of writing to MP's & MEP's as Simon Dale was suggesting, this would be largely wasted endeavour at this stage as the majority of them are not involved. Writing to the specific MEP's on the European Parliament Transport & Tourism Committee (TRAN) to seek their support for the proposed amendments may be more useful, but we already have a good level of support and there is some concern that if they get a large amount of correspondence then it may be ultimately be counterproductive and cloud the issue at a time when we need to present a very clear message.

EASA are sending out a standard response to comments submitted:

Subject: RE: Flying of Model Aircraft
Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.
We had and are having a big debate on model inclusion in this regulation and how to differentiate between a model and a normal drone operator flying for leisure.
We are trying to give as much flexibility as we can and art 15 of the Prototype Rule gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model associations identifying deviations from the rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing model clubs to operate as they do today and in reality nothing will change for you and no modification will be required to your aircraft.
We are having discussions with Model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs. With their help we will improve the text further if needed.

I attended the same meeting with the CAA and DfT last week which Simon Dale refers to in his video and I was asked to brief the meeting on my direct negotiations with EASA. His comment on the 'Dear faceless bureaucrat' email sent to EASA was something I related to the meeting (it was actually 'Dear faceless civil servant) and was not intended for wider broadcast. We are working closely with the DfT and CAA who are supportive (the CAA provided some input into the presentation I gave to EASA).

Ultimately, the Prototype Rules are just that. There are a number of stages which they would have to pass through to come into force and dependent upon how negotiations progress, then we may seek to mobilise all model flyers throughout Europe to make a mass response. However, this is something I would like to keep the 'powder dry on' at this stage.

As you can see from the above, we are not only active on this front but we are leading it (through Europe Air Sports) on behalf of model flyers throughout Europe. There is a lot more going on at present in addition to that outlined above, some of which is quite sensitive and as such I cannot report on just yet.

I hope this helps and gives you some reassurance?

Regards

Dave

Dave Phipps
Chief Executive
(and Technical Officer to Europe Air Sports)

Tel: 0116 2440028
Fax: 0116 2440645
email: [email protected]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shikra]

Thanks for posting. Very positive...

[electrotor]

It is certainly good to read this well written and measured response from Dave Phipps. I was going to pick out one or two passages, but it all seems to offer good advice on what to do/not do and reassurance that there is important work being done directly with EASA.

[CurryKitten]

Ok, so I may be missing something, but to me it looks like the BMFA looking out for their own membership/clubs... to be fair, that's only to be expected really.  But I don't see how the news is any different if you aren't part of a club/fly at a club site

I'm looking specifically at the paragraph from the post (I've obviously made a few bit bold myself) -

We are trying to give as much flexibility as we can and art 15 of the Prototype Rule gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model associations identifying deviations from the rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing model clubs to operate as they do today and in reality nothing will change for you and no modification will be required to your aircraft.

So if I'm reading it correctly - if you are not part of club/flying at one, the same draconian rules they are setting out will still apply ?

[electrotor]

Ok. Done.

I've made a petition – will you sign it?

Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168404/sponsors/q5fdZTkHcd7IDz0ptDm

My petition:

Do not adopt the recent EASA 'Prototype' Regulation on Unmanned Aircraft

The petition calls upon MPs to ensure that jurisdiction of the UK civilian airspace remain completely under the control of the CAA and that the recent EASA document "'Prototype' Commission Regulation on Unmanned Aircraft Operations" not be put into place within CAA controlled airspace.

Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168404/sponsors/q5fdZTkHcd7IDz0ptDm

If you now click on the link above you will see that krikey's petition has been rejected in light of another similar petition. If you haven't already signed the similar petition please do it. Currently 1882 signatures. Also have a look at the petition map which shows the concentrations of signatures.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168112

[BigT]

Ok, so I may be missing something, but to me it looks like the BMFA looking out for their own membership/clubs...

So if I'm reading it correctly - if you are not part of club/flying at one, the same draconian rules they are setting out will still apply ?

Not necessarily so, also quoted elsewhere is the involvement of the LMA, FPV UK, the JMA, GBRCAA, the SAA, IMAC, PSSA etc etc. All these and more are to be considered as the same as the BMFA by EASA. Anyone can start a BMFA club, you don't even need a flying site just 5 members and a rough constitution. And what's more there are plans afoot for a National Flying Centre.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[krikey]

Some positive and dare I say sensible studies are to be carried out on drones and full sized aircraft.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/18/13314916/drone-crash-airplane-test-uk-dangers

[Loopdreams]

I think if they could just regulate over, say, 2KG differently then that would be fine.  Anything less than that and unless everyone in the country buys a drone each and they all fly them around airports all the time then birds will remain a far, far bigger concern.

[Brucey]

Surely density has a part to play in this? A 2kg quadcopter compared to a 2kg foam wing?

[electrotor]

Surely density has a part to play in this? A 2kg quadcopter compared to a 2kg foam wing?

Speed, direction, point of impact, motor position, battery position, etc. all will affect the outcome, so it's not as simple as foam versus hard shell or composite frame.

In the past day a few articles have appeared about this drone testing, but the one krikey has linked to is about as balanced as any.

[FPVSteve]

I still don't understand why they don't just hard limit hobbyists to 400ft since VFR aircraft are required to stay above 500ft (except in certain cirumstances).

That would solve the issue in 99.9% of cases IMO, and anyone flying higher than that altitude wouldn't have a leg to stand on in case of a collision with an aircraft..

Oh wait - they already do. It's just for some reason they feel we need MORE regulation.

The 1,000ft exemption is great and all but it muddies the water between drones and real aircraft. I'd trade that for getting the authorities off our backs. 400ft is pretty high for little planes, you can certainly push "illegal range" at that altitude with a decent UHF system anyway so not quite sure why any of us NEED to push for more altitude except for bragging rights and cool cloud pictures.

[rob.thomson]

Agreed.    You can do loads of flying under 400ft.  No bother to me!

[Loopdreams]

Surely density has a part to play in this? A 2kg quadcopter compared to a 2kg foam wing?

Sure, but you base the rule on the worst case scenario.  Same way classifications of many other things work.

[BanditD]

https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/Token/Info/ArticleID/2417#.WBHXaABKkTI.facebook

Seems mass replies work :)

[Brucey]

Let's hope FPV is represented by the expert group.